Based on Government Code Section 54954.5
(All Statutory References are to California Government
Code Sections)

G.C. 54956.8

Potential purchase of open space.

Property:Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029,

7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022

City Negotiators:City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Negotiating Parties:York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation:Price and Terms of Payment

Recommendation: Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all councilmembers after the reading of the title.

Recommendation: Direct staff to forward the City’s Annual Progress Report on the General Plan to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and to the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the current status of the General Plan and the progress on its implementation during Calendar Year 2000 and through June 30, 2001.

Staff Coordinator:Eduardo Schonborn, AICP, Associate Planner

Direct Staff to forward the City’s Annual Progress Report on the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan to the State Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and to the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the current status of the General Plan and the progress on its implementation during the 2000 calendar year and through June 30, 2001.

The City’s General Plan is a statement by local citizens of what is in the best interest of their community. The General Plan has functioned, and continues to function, as a guide to the future desires of residents. It provides the means by which the desired future can be obtained through specified goals and policies. Such goals and policies are implemented in conjunction with the City’s Development Code. To assess the progress of implementing the General Plan, Section 65400(b)(1) of the California State Government Code, requires that each city "provide an annual report to the legislative body on the status of the [general] plan and progress in its implementation."

On August 28, 2001 the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the attached 2000-2001 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, and directed Staff, via Minute Order, to forward the report to the City Council for review and consideration.

Pursuant to Section 65400 of the State Government Code, Staff has prepared the City’s Annual Report regarding the status of the General Plan. The Annual Report lists the actions taken by the City, and the General Plan goals and policies implemented between January 2000 through June 30, 2001. This is because Staff is transitioning from a calendar year reporting cycle to a fiscal year reporting cycle. The Report is attached for the City Council’s consideration; and, if acceptable to the City Council, the Report will be subsequently delivered to both the State Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development.

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternative is available for the City Council’s consideration:

1. Direct Staff to modify the Report, and include additional information as directed by the City Council prior to forwarding the Report to the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development.

Respectfully submitted,
Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

The purpose of this report is to comply with the requirements of Section 65400(b)(1) of the California State Government Code, which requires that an annual report be submitted to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The annual report must provide information regarding the status of the City’s General Plan and the progress on its implementation, including the progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs. The General Plan is a comprehensive planning document intended to guide development for the City.

State law requires that each adopted general plan address a minimum of seven issues (i.e., "elements"). Each element covers a certain aspect of the City’s growth and development, and must be consistent with the other elements. The seven mandatory elements include Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety (including Seismic Safety). Additional optional elements may be included, as deemed appropriate by each city, depending on the unusual characteristics or development concerns of the jurisdiction. In reference to the City’s natural scenic vistas, the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan includes an optional Scenic Highway element. Although each of the mandatory and optional elements are contained within the City’s document, the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan addresses each element in broader categories, where the discussions regarding each mandatory element are integrated (and may overlap one another) throughout the document, as opposed to separate headings for each mandatory element.

The broader categories adopted in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ General Plan include the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT, which includes the mandatory Land Use, Conservation and Open Space elements; SOCIO/CULTURAL ELEMENT, which includes the mandatory Conservation and Open Space elements; and the URBAN ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT, which includes the mandatory Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation and Open Space, Safety, Seismic Safety, and Noise elements, as well as the optional Scenic Highway element. In addition, the City’s General Plan includes a separate LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT that includes additional discussion regarding conservation, open space housing and seismic safety; and a FISCAL ELEMENT, which includes discussions regarding conservation, open space, and transportation (trails and bikeways). Finally, the City has an adopted HOUSING ELEMENT document, which was updated in 1992. However, in December 2000, the City Council approved a Draft Housing Element in accordance with State requirements, and has been coordinating with the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to certify the document.

The Annual Report individually illustrates each of the seven mandatory elements of the rather than the broader categories. Each element is provides a list of actions taken by the City during calendar year 2000 through June 31, 2001, followed by a reference to the appropriate policy that is implemented by the action. The full text of each policy and goal implemented begins on page 12 of this report.

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated in 1973 in response to high-density development proposals along the scenic coastal bluffs that help define the character of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Subsequently, the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan was prepared and adopted on June 26, 1975. The adopted goals related to minimizing density along the coastal bluff areas, maintaining the rural character of the community, recognizing and managing unique resources, and identifying and protecting areas with significant development constrains such as sloped areas and areas of geologic instability. These goals of the City are the same today.

Although the General Plan has not been updated, a total of 18 amendments have been made, which are summarized on the following page. The General Plan has been implemented through the City’s Development Code, which was revised in May 1997. The revisions include stringent design review and neighborhood compatibility standards that are designed to serve as effective implementation tools for the General Plan. The revisions also incorporated provisions and criteria for the construction of second units on single-family residential properties.

The City’s population has grown by only 5,145 since incorporation 28 years ago. Further, the City’s single-family housing units have increased by only 241 units between 1990 and 2000, which demonstrates the consistency of development in the City with the low density and rural character goals and policies contained in the General Plan.

In December 2000, the City Council approved a Draft Housing Element in accordance with State requirements, which was forwarded to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and comment. After addressing HCD comments, on June 29, 2001, the City was notified that the revised Draft Housing Element "meets the statutory requirements of State housing element law" and thus will be in full compliance with State Law when formally adopted by the City and submitted to HCD for final review. It is anticipated that the Housing Element will be reviewed, adopted and certified by the City Council in August 2001.

The actions taken by the City during the calendar year 2000 and through June 31, 2001 are consistent with the goals and policies contained within the City’s General Plan. The City continues to implement these goals and policies with decisions that balance community needs, property rights, and the health and welfare of the general public. The City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff continue to adhere to a vision for the City: to promote a well informed educated public with regard to City issues, problems, and services; a friendly responsive and competent City government; a safe community in which to live and work; a community with a sound economic base; a sound financial base to support and maintain vital City services; reductions to long-term public infrastructure costs within the City; and, a well maintained, balanced, and aesthetically pleasing community.

Listed below are actions taken by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes towards implementation of the General Plan during the 2000 calendar year, including actions taken through June 31, 2001. Past implementation reports have reported on the actions taken during calendar year; however, the City will commence reporting on a fiscal year rather than a calendar year.

Although the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan contains broader categories, each of the required elements is contained within these broad categories. Page one of this report indicates where each mandatory element is included within the City’s General Plan. As such, the following information is intended to specify and highlight each mandatory element, with a brief definition and the actions taken to implement the General Plan. The applicable policy number and page number where each policy can be found in the General Plan follows each action. However, a list of each policy as specified in the General Plan and referenced in this document, begins on Page 12 of this report.

By mandatory element, the following actions occurred:

1. Land Use Element

• Continued implementation of the comprehensively revised Development Code through the processing of relevant development applications. (Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 1-5 and 10-18 on Page 78, and Policy Nos. 7 and 8, Page 175)

• Allowed the keeping of four (4) horses and the operation of a therapeutic riding program on a 1.16-acre parcel in the Portuguese Bend Equestrian Overlay (Q) District by Ride-to-Fly, a non-profit organization. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 16, Page 175)

• Approved miscellaneous minor revisions to the Ocean Trails project consisting of 75 single-family residences and an 18-hole golf course. (Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 2, 13 and 15, Page 78)

• Approved minor miscellaneous revisions to the Oceanfront Estates project consisting of 79 single-family residences. (Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 2, 13, and 15, Page 78)

• Approved the construction of a new, one-story, 15,099 square foot Montessori School for preschool students and students in grades K to 6 for a maximum total of 240 students, 20 teachers (2 per classroom) and 6 support staff members. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1 and 6, Page 93; and Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 57)

• Approved the installation of various antenna panels for cellular telephones and personal communication systems on property throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element Goal on page preceding Page 101; and Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Policy No. 8, Page 138)

• Approved the construction a new 665 square foot hand car wash/vacuum area; a 600 square foot trellis seating area; a 180 square foot detail canopy; and a new 9 square foot car wash sign. (Urban Environment Policy No. 2 and 7, Page 85)

• Approved a conditional use permit for the operation of a Montessori School at the former Safeway grocery store located in the Golden Cove Center. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1 and 6, Page 93; and Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 57)

2. Circulation/Transportation Element

• Continued allocation of Proposition A funds for bus stop shelter maintenance and improvements, the PV Transit/Dial-a-Ride programs and the Municipal Area Express (MAX) Transit system. (Socio-Cultural Element Policy No. 2, Page 55; Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 4 and 5, Page 137; and Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

• Continued implementation of the City-wide Residential Street Overlay program to conduct studies to identify streets that require maintenance, upgrades and/or improvements. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

• Allocated Gas Tax funds for street slurry seal, and street and sidewalk repair throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

• Allocated General Fund revenues to public safety and road improvements, maintenance, and construction programs. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

• Reviewed truck-hauling routes for trucks transporting construction-related material and equipment. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 187)

• Continued the construction of storm drain improvements throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element –Disposal/Recovery System Policy No. 4, Page 112)

• Commenced the construction on the Abalone Cove Sewer System project. (Urban Environment Element –Disposal/Recovery System Policy No. 8, Page 112)

• Completed the design on the peninsula-wide bikeway improvements. (Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6, Page 137)

• Constructed a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive West and a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive South. (Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192)

• Constructed improvements to the City’s arterial roadway network in accordance with the recommendations of the Pavement Management Program. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

3. Open Space Element, and
4. Conservation Element

The Open Space Element is the plan for the "comprehensive and long range preservation and conservation of open space land…" (Govt. Code Section 65563). It must specify plans and measures for preserving open space for natural resources, for managing the production of resources, for outdoor recreation, and for public health and safety.

• Entered into an agreement to purchase a combined total of 722 acres of open space land in Upper Filiorum and Portuguese Bend. (Natural Environment Element Policy No. 14, Page 45, and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 17, Page 78)

• Purchased 98 acres of open space land known as the Barkentine property, with Measure ‘A’ funds. (Natural Environment Element Policy Nos. 7 and 14, Page 45)

• Completed design of the peninsula-wide bikeway improvements. (Urban Environment Element- Transportation Systems Policy No. 6, Page 137)

• Continued participation in the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program with the State Department of Fish and Game, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (Natural Environment Element Policy Nos. 4, 7, and 14, Page 45)

• Continued use of recycling funds to allocate and implement the beautification grants and the "Recycler of the Month" programs. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 112)

• Continued the installation of recycling containers at various City parks and facilities. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 112)

• Completed the approved development project of Lower Hesse Park. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 11, Page 99)

• Co-sponsored various nature walks and hikes conducted by the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy at various locations throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 55; and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 99)

• Monitored the development of the trails approved as part of the construction of the Ocean Trails and the Ocean Front Estates development projects. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 99; Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6 and 7, Page 137)

• Monitored the implementation of the Ocean Trails Habitat Conservation Program. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 78)

• Implemented docent-led hikes through the trails constructed at the Ocean Trails. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 55; and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 99)

• Accepted the equestrian and pedestrian trails constructed throughout the Seabreeze development project (Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6 and 7, Page 137)

• The Recreation and Parks Committee, in conjunction with the Planning Department, continued the review of short and long-term improvements to trails on the City’s Forrestal Property. (Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6 and 11, Page 137)

• Entered into a formal agreement with the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy to re-vegetate, operate and maintain the City’s Forrestal Property. (Natural Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 45; Urban Environment Element Policy No. 11, Page 99; and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 137)

5. Safety/Seismic Safety Element

• Allocated General Fund revenues to public safety and road improvements, maintenance, and construction programs. (Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101)

• Coordinated holiday sobriety checkpoints with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Urban Environment Element – Safety Policy No. 10, Page 175)

• Continued the services of crossing guards in neighborhoods surrounding schools. (Urban Environment Element – Safety Policy No. 1, Page 175)

• Renewed agreements with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s and Fire Departments for law enforcement, fire protection and paramedic services. (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy Nos. 3-5, 11, and 13, Page 175)

• Coordinated with the Los Angeles County Weed Abatement District for fire hazard and fuel management reductions. (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy Nos. 2 and 6, Page 175)

• Continued Risk Management Programs with the Emergency Response Team, which is consistent with the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 14, Page 175)

• Continued to enforce the City’s Development Code and the Uniform Building Code, which include detailed geologic review requirements. (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 2, Page 175)

6. Noise Element

• Continued the implementation of the Municipal Code regulating hours of construction and operation of mechanical equipment. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 187)

• Reviewed truck-hauling routes for trucks transporting construction-related material and equipment. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 187)

7. Housing Element

• Continued the City’s formal Code Enforcement Program. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 78)

• Continued the implementation of the Home Improvement Program to provide grants and/or deferred loans to eligible low and moderate income homeowners for necessary minor home repairs, as well as repairs to correct building and safety code deficiencies. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 3, Page 78)

• Approved a Draft Housing Element and forwarded the document to the State’s Housing and Community Development Department for comment (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6 Page 78)

• Purchased approximately 19-acres for potential new affordable housing units, using Redevelopment Agency set-aside funds. (Urban Environment Goal, page preceding Page 57)

• Accepted $596,000 of in-lieu of affordable housing fees from the developer of the Ocean Front Estates development project. (Fiscal Element Policy No. 8, Page 241)

A Specific Plan is a tool for implementation of the General Plan and contains development goals and guidelines for specified areas and/or districts within the City. To date, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has adopted four Specific Plans, including the Coastal Specific Plan, which addresses land use and development within the City’s Coastal Zone (all land seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South), as well as three Specific Plan districts along the Western Avenue commercial corridor. Staff is in the process of combining the three specific plans that govern Western Avenue, into one reference document, which is expected to be more user-friendly. Since the text, issues, policies, and standards will not be changed, a specific plan amendment will not be required. Nonetheless, by Specific Plan District, the following actions occurred during calendar year 2000 and through June 31, 2001:

Certified in 1981, the Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan provides specific development guidelines and standards for all land located seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South. The lands have been classified by Sub-regions (1-8), with specific development criteria provided, based on the unique character of each Sub-region.

• Within Sub-region five, constructed a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive South, containing a parking area and signage pertaining to the immediate natural environment. (Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192)

• Within Sub-region one, constructed a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive West. (Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192)

• Continued monitoring the development of trails implemented with the construction of the Ocean Trails (Sub-region seven and eight) and the Ocean Front Estates (Sub-region one) development projects (Policy Nos. 1 and 2, Page U-28 of the Coastal Specific Plan).

This Specific Plan area includes properties located between 28821 – 28947 Western Avenue (southwest corner of Caddington Drive and Western Avenue) – The Terraces Shopping Center. Specific Plan No. II was adopted in 1985 by the City Council.

• Updated the Sign Program for The Terraces Shopping Center. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 85)

This Specific Plan area includes properties located between 29505 – 29701 Western Avenue. Specific Plan No. III was adopted in 1986 by the City Council.

• Constructed the 4,000 square foot automotive use (tire store) and a 2,240 square foot retail/restaurant building at Western Avenue and Summerland Drive, and miscellaneous improvements to the public right-of-way, as approved by Specific Plan Amendment No. 10. (Policy Nos. 3 and 7, Page 85)

This Specific Plan area includes properties located between 29019 – 29421 Western Avenue. Specific Plan No. IV was adopted in 1987 by the City Council.

• No proposals for development were submitted to the City during 2000 and through June 31, 2001.

Below is a summary list of the General Plan Policies and Goals, and relevant Specific Plan Policies that were implemented during the 2000 calendar year and through June 31, 2001, as specified in the actions of the 2000-2001 Annual Report.

Open Space Element, and Conservation Element

#####

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A NEW CONTRACT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING TO OBTAIN THE REMAINING BALANCE OF A $25,000 GRANT FOR THE PENINSULA SENIORS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002.

Adopt Resolution No. 2001- ; authorizing the City Manager to execute a new contract with the California Department of Aging to obtain the remaining balance of a $25,000 grant for the Peninsula Seniors during FY 01-02.

Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal was successful in including funds in the 2000-01 State Budget for a $25,000 grant to the Peninsula Seniors. The grant, which is administered through the California Department of Aging, included $15,000 for the Peninsula Seniors to conduct the recently completed Needs Assessment Study and $10,000 to supplement current programs and services offered by the Peninsula Seniors, including legal, financial, tax and estates counseling; low-vision and hearing impairment support classes; weekly educational and informational lectures; and senior exercise classes.

In order to obtain the grant funds, the City was required to enter into a contract with the California Department of Aging. The contract enabled the City to act as the conduit for the funds between the state and the Peninsula Seniors. On March 20, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001-26, authorizing staff to enter into such a contract for FY 00-01.

During FY 00-01, the City successfully processed a $13,647 reimbursement for the Peninsula Seniors. The remainder of the funds ($11,353) remains to be reimbursed during FY 01-02. Because the grant has spanned over two fiscal years, state regulations require the City to enter into a new contract with the Department of Aging for FY 01-02. One of the requirements of the new contract is that the City Council adopts another resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the new contract with the Department of Aging for the current fiscal year. To that end, the draft resolution for FY 01-02 is attached for the Council’s review.

Other than the staff’s time required to process the grant application and contract paperwork, the City will not incur any other expenses in facilitating the state grant for the Peninsula Seniors.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -

WHEREAS, Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal included funds in the 2000-01 State Budget for a grant to support the activities of the Peninsula Seniors, and,

WHEREAS, on March 20, 2001, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001-26; providing proof of authorization to execute the contract with the California Department of Aging for Fiscal Year 2000-01; and,

WHEREAS, on September 7, 2001, the City received notice that the grant had been carried over into the 2001-02 State Budget Act, thus requiring the City to enter into a new contract with the California Department of Aging, as well as providing new authorization to execute the contract for the current fiscal year.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDE DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract with the California Department of Aging to obtain the remaining balance of a $25,000 grant for the Peninsula Seniors to complete a Needs Assessment Study and supplement current programs and services.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2^nd day of October 2001.

________________
CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)

I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on March 20, 2001.

________________________________
City Clerk

Recommendation: Make the following appointments: Miraleste Recreation & Park District: (1) Appoint Peter D. Glusac and Dawn E. Henry for a full term ending December 2, 2005. (2) Appoint Keith Harter to the unexpired term ending December 5, 2003. Ridgecrest Recreation & Park District: Appoint Victor Hansen, Gwynne Shaw and Dolores Pittelkow to a full term ending December 2, 2005.

RECOMMENDATION
Make the following appointments: Miraleste Recreation & Park District: (1) Appoint Peter D. Glusac and Dawn E. Henry for a full term ending December 2, 2005. (2) Appoint Keith Harter to the unexpired term ending December 5, 2003. Ridgecrest Recreation & Park District: Appoint Victor Hansen, Gwynne Shaw and Dolores Pittelkow to a full term ending December 2, 2005.

INTRODUCTION
Making these appointments will fill the vacancies left by the expiration of the term of office for certain members of these boards.

BACKGROUND
These two special districts are responsible for maintaining certain parklands, lighting, and landscaping within their boundaries. Both districts have an elected five-member board of directors that conduct the business of the district; members are elected for a four-year term of office.

Miraleste Recreation & Park District
Three of the members of this district filed nomination papers: two of those members (Glusac and Henry) will now have a full term of four years; one member (Harter) is being appointed to serve until December 5, 2003 because he was appointed mid-term to fill an unexpired term.

The County Clerk’s Office has issued a certificate stating that since three candidates were nominated for the three offices to be filled, the election scheduled for November 6, 2001 is cancelled. Pursuant to Section 10515 of the Elections Code and Section 5780.1 of the Public Resources Code, the City Council can appoint the persons nominated.

Ridgecrest Recreation & Park District
The three members (Hansen, Shaw and Pittelkow) whose terms expire this December did not file nomination papers. As in the case of the Miraleste District, the County Clerk’s Office has issued a certificate stating that the election also scheduled for November 6, 2001 is cancelled and that the City Council can appoint qualified persons to fill those positions.

The City is now in receipt of a letter from the three incumbent members of the district stating their willingness to serve on the board for another full four-year term.

Recommendation: Review and reconfirm by 4/5 vote the Council’s September 18^th action to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE drainage pipe for the Palos Verdes Drive So. Drainage Repair Project.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT:INFORMAL BID AND PRE-ORDERING OF HDPE PIPE FOR THE PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH DRAINAGE REPAIR PROJECT

Review and reconfirm by a four/fifths (4/5) vote, the Council’s previous action on September 18, 2001 to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE drainage pipe for the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project.

On August 7, 2001, the City Council found that an emergency exists concerning the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project. This emergency situation will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids or the normal process of ordering the pipe. The Council authorized staff to conduct an informal bid process and to pre-order the drainage pipe that will be required for this project.

Approval of both the informal bid process and the pre-ordering of the pipe required a four-fifths (4/5) vote under Public Contract Code Section 22050(a)(1). In addition, Public Contract Code Section 22050(c)(1) requires that when a governing body takes action under Section 22050(a)(1), it must review that action and reaffirm it by a four-fifths vote at each subsequent regularly scheduled meeting until the action is terminated. Accordingly, because the informal bid process has not yet been completed, staff has placed this item on tonight’s agenda.

As Council will recall, staff proposed the use of (HDPE) pipe for this project because it is more flexible and lighter than traditional corrugated metal pipe (CMP). These characteristics are well suited for the pipe that will be laid in the canyon exposed.

Respectfully submitted:
Dean Allison, Public Works Director

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Recommendation: (1) Award a $634,534 construction contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company to overlay portions of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards and authorize staff to spend an additional $63,453 for possible extra work, thereby approving a $697,987 construction budget. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company. (3) Award a $43,600 professional services agreement to DMc for construction management and inspection services. (4) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract for a professional services agreement with DMc Engineering.

1. Award a $634,534 construction contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company to overlay portions of Crenshaw Boulevard and Hawthorne Boulevard, and authorize staff to spend an additional $63,453 for possible extra work; for a total authorization of $697,987.
   
   
2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company.
   
   
3. Award a Professional Services Contract to DMc Engineering Inc, for Construction Management and Inspection Services for an amount not to exceed $43,600.
   
   
4. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with DMc Engineering.

The adopted FY 2001-2002 budget includes $880,000 for the Annual Arterial Rehabilitation Program. The city’s pavement management program identifies portions of Crenshaw Boulevard (Crest Road to Indian Peek Road) and Hawthorne Boulevard (Verde Ridge Road to Dupre Drive) as the arterial roadways to be rehabilitated this fiscal year. Engineering plans to overlay these two roadways have been prepared.

While the plans were being prepared, it was determined that the cost to overlay the recommended portions of both roadways exceeds the amount provided for this project in the adopted FY 2001 – 02 budget. However because there are unbudgeted, non-General Fund roadway funds available, and because the engineering design was already completed, the Public Works Department advertised a construction contract that was segmented in a manner which allows the City Council to decide this evening the size of the Arterial Overlay Program they wish to complete this fiscal year.

If the City Council wishes to award a construction project in accordance with the adopted budget they should adopt the recommended action. If however, the City Council wishes to move forward with a slightly larger project, which utilizes available unbudgeted non-general fund roadway funds, Alternative One or Two should be adopted.

The three options available are as follows:

The funding sources for the base bid and the two alternatives are the Gas Tax Fund, Proposition C, Proposition A, Congestion Management Funds, and a County of Los Angeles grant.

If the City Council adopts either Alternative One or Two, the project will begin and staff will bring a budget resolution back to the City Council for authorization of the additional funding.

On August 22, 2001, staff received the following construction bids:

All three contractors have the experience and financial solvency necessary to successfully complete the required work. It is recommended that the contract be awarded to Sully-Miller Contracting Company because they submitted the lowest responsible, responsive bid. Regardless of whether the base bid contract or either alternative contract is awarded, Sully-Miller Contracting Company is the lowest responsible responsive bidder.

This project will require inspection and contract management services. Accordingly, staff solicited proposals from three qualified engineering firms. Staff received proposals from Harris & Associates and DMc Engineering. Based on an evaluation/rating of each proposal and available staffing, DMc Engineering is the most qualified firm. Therefore, staff recommends that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement with DMc Engineering. The amount of that contract will vary with the size of the construction contract that is awarded.

This project will utilize rubberized asphalt. This is the first time that the City has used rubberized asphalt in a Public Works project. Rubberized asphalt is an environmental friendly product; it utilizes used tires in its mix. Rubberized asphalt will be more durable and will stay a dark rich color longer than conventional asphalt. In addition traffic will generate less noise with a rubberized asphalt roadway than with a conventional asphalt roadway.

This project will construct concrete pads within the roadway at all bus stops. Asphalt roadways generally deteriorate more rapidly and require more maintenance adjacent to bus stops due to the heavy loading from the buses. The new concrete pads will significantly improve the durability of the roadway. Proposition A funds will be utilized for the concrete pads.

Adopting the staff recommendation will award the base bid construction contract and corresponding professional service contract to overlay portions of Crenshaw Boulevard (Crest Road to Indian Peek Road) and Hawthorne Boulevard (Dupre Drive to Crest Road). This recommendation will result in a construction project at a cost consistent with the adopted FY 2001 – 02 budget.

If however the City Council wishes to utilize available unbudgeted, non-general fund roadway funds together with the funding in the adopted budget, then a larger project can be awarded and one of the two alternative actions should be adopted.

1. Award an $800,338 Construction Contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company, for the overlay of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards, and authorize staff to spend an additional $80,033 for possible extra work; for a total authorization $880,371.
   
   
2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company.
   
   
3. Award a $49,650 Professional Services Agreement to DMc Engineering for Construction Management and Inspection Services.
   
   
4. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with DMc Engineering.
   
   
5. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution amending the current project budget to include an additional $50,021 to cover the cost of overlaying the second segment of Hawthorne Boulevard (Crest Road to Indian Valley Road). Staff has investigated potential sources of funding and has determined that sufficient Proposition C Funds are available.

Alternative Action Number Two:

1. Award a $919,727 Construction Contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company, for the overlay of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards, and authorize staff to spend an additional $91,972 for possible extra work; thereby approving a $1,011,699 construction budget.
   
   
2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company.
   
   
3. Award a $55,700 Professional Services Agreement to DMc Engineering for Construction Management and Inspection Services.
   
   
4. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with DMc Engineering.
   
   
5. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution amending the current project budget to include an additional $187,399 to cover the cost of overlaying Segments Two and Three of Hawthorne Boulevard (Crest Road to Verde Ridge Road). Staff has investigated potential sources of funding and has determined that a combination of available Proposition C, Gas Tax and Congestion Management Funds are available.

The fiscal impact of the recommended option, and two alternatives is summarized below.

Respectfully submitted,
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment: Exhibit Map

Recommendations: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL UNDERGROUND DISTRICTS.

Adopt Resolution 2001 - , a resolution of the City Council for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes establishing guidelines for residential undergrounding districts.

On July 17, 2001 the City Council adopted guidelines for residential undergrounding districts. A copy of the proposed guidelines is attached. This staff report adopts a City Council resolution that memorializes those guidelines.

Staff was requested to make two modifications to the guidelines that have been incorporated. The guidelines have been modified to make it clear that property owners are responsible for the cost of the undergrounding. The guidelines have also been modified to emphasize the payment deferral program offered through the State of California.

Adopting the staff recommendation will memorialize in resolution form the guidelines for the residential undergrounding program.

The estimated administrative cost of this program has been included in the adopted FY 2001 – 02 budget. The funding source is the General Fund.

Submitted by,
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Resolution
Proposed Guidelines

RESOLUTION NO. 2001-____

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ________ day of September, 2001.

__________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________
City Clerk

Recommendation: Receive and file.

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

Receive and file the July 2001 Treasurer's Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Government Code Section 53646 requires the City Treasurer to submit an investment report to the City Council on at least a quarterly basis. The City has elected to submit a treasurer’s report to the Council for review each month. This report summarizes the cash activity associated with all funds of the City. A separate treasurer’s report is prepared monthly for both the Redevelopment Agency and Improvement Authority and is presented under separate cover before their respective governing bodies. The attached treasurer's report includes the cash activities of the City for the month of July 2001.

The overall cash balances of the City totaled $26,245,203 at July 31, 2001. This represents a $332,365 decrease during the month. The overall decrease is a result of various factors in several individual funds of the City. These factors are discussed in detail below for each fund experiencing a noteworthy cash event.

Gas Tax Fund – The Gas Tax fund cash balance decreased by approximately $87,000 primarily due to the payment of $59,000 to Silvia Construction for the FY2000-2001 slurry seal retention.

Recycling Fund – The cash balance in the Recycling fund increased by more than $110,000 during the month due to the receipt of approximately $50,000 from Waste Management for quarterly recycling fees, as well as receipt of approximately $50,000 from the Department of Conservation for annual cash-back payments.

Proposition A Fund – The cash balance in the Proposition A fund decreased by more than $146,000 during the month due to the $188,000 semi-annual payment to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority for dial-a-ride support.

CIP Fund – Cash decreased by approximately $129,000 in this fund during the month. This fluctuation is primarily due to the $83,000 FY2000-2001 overlay retention payment to Silvia Construction and the $261,000 slant drain reimbursement to Capital Pacific Homes. These payments were partially offset by the$152,833 monthly transfer from the General fund.

Building Replacement Fund – Cash increased by over $510,000 in this fund during the month of July due to receipt of the annual budgeted transfer from the General fund for $500,000.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

Receive and file the August 2001 Treasurer's Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Government Code Section 53646 requires the City Treasurer to submit an investment report to the City Council on at least a quarterly basis. The City has elected to submit a treasurer’s report to the Council for review each month. This report summarizes the cash activity associated with all funds of the City. A separate treasurer’s report is prepared monthly for both the Redevelopment Agency and Improvement Authority and is presented under separate cover before their respective governing bodies. The attached treasurer's report includes the cash activities of the City for the month of August 2001.

The overall cash balances of the City totaled $25,593,216 at August 31, 2001. This represents a $651,987 decrease during the month. The overall decrease is a result of various factors in several individual funds of the City. These factors are discussed in detail below for each fund experiencing a noteworthy cash event.

CIP Fund – The cash balance in the CIP fund decreased by over $127,000 during the month. The most notable cash disbursements included a PVDS retention payment to Excel Paving for $90,000, a bikeways payment to PCI, Ltd. for $55,000, and a soil remediation payment to The Source Group for $28,000. These disbursements were partially offset by the monthly transfer from the General fund for $152,833.

Measure A Fund – The cash balance in the Measure A fund decreased by almost $56,000 during the month. This was primarily due to the $60,512 payment for accrued interest on the Barkentine open space property purchase.

Special Trusts Fund – The cash balance in this fund decreased by over $150,000 during the month. Cash fluctuations in the Special Trusts fund are caused by timing differences of payments to and from the City for various services including engineering and inspections. The August cash decrease was primarily due to payments to Cotton Shires & Associates on behalf of Ocean Trails and a payment to Keyser Marston Associates on behalf of the developer of the proposed Long Point Resort project.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING A FEE TO BE SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONS REQUESTING ADVANCE FUNDING BY THE CITY FOR FORMATION COSTS FOR ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2001-__.

Adopt Resolution No. 2001-___, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING A FEE TO BE SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONS REQUESTING ADVANCE FUNDING BY THE CITY OF FORMATION COSTS FOR ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2001."

Adoption of this resolution will establish a fee for filing petitions, pursuant to Resolution No. 2001-____, requesting that the City advance formation costs for the establishment of an undergrounding assessment district. The purpose of the procedure and fee is to ensure that the City only expends funds in neighborhoods where there is strong homeowner support for an undergrounding project.

Section 10 of the Procedure Resolution authorizes the City Council to establish the amount of the Petition Fee by separate resolution. The proposed petition fee will be one hundred dollars ($100) per petition (i.e. per parcel). The purpose of petition fee is to partially cover the Formation Costs to be incurred as a result of the submission of the Petition Forms and to discourage petitions requesting advance funding of the formation costs for proposed undergrounding assessment districts, which do not have serious support from the property owners in the neighborhood. The petition fee will be kept in a segregated City account to be used exclusively for funding Formation Costs. If the City Council does not certify Petition Forms within the period required by the Procedure Resolution, then the Petition Fees associated with those Petition Forms will be returned to the fee payers without interest. In the event the City Council ultimately forms an Assessment District as the result of the submission of Petition Forms, then those property owners who have paid Fees in connection with the Assessment District will receive a credit against their assessment for the amount of the Fees that are paid.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 66018, the City Council is required to hold a public hearing before it may adopt the resolution establishing the petition fee. The public hearing was duly noticed by publication in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 6062a. After the presentation of the staff report, the City Council should open the public hearing and receive testimony from the public for and against the proposed fee. At the conclusion of public testimony, the City Council should close the public hearing and conduct its deliberations with respect to this resolution and the proposed petition fee.

Adopting the staff recommendation will establish the fee required by Section 10 of the Procedure Resolution.

Submitted by,
Dean Allison,.Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Draft Resolution

WHEREAS, many homeowners in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City") have expressed interest in the undergrounding of the electric and communications facilities in their neighborhood; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City, pursuant to its Resolution No. 2001-__ (the "Procedure Resolution"), has established a program to (i) provide a procedure for homeowners to request advance funding of the assessment district formation costs associated with an undergrounding project and (ii) ensure that such funding is only granted in neighborhoods where there is strong homeowner support for an undergrounding project; and

WHEREAS, Section 10 of the Procedure Resolution provides that the City may establish a Petition Fee (the "Fee") to be charged to property owners submitting petition forms ("Petition Forms") requesting (i) the establishment of an assessment district for the purpose of funding the undergrounding of utilities and (ii) the advance funding by the City of the formation costs associated with the formation of such a district (the "Formation Costs"); and

WHEREAS, the purpose of such fee is to partially cover the Formation Costs to be incurred as a result of the submission of the Petition Forms and such fee will be kept in a segregated account to be used exclusively for this purpose; and

WHEREAS, if the City Council does not certify Petition Forms within the period required by the Procedure Resolution then the Fees associated with those Petition Forms must be refunded to the fee payers without interest; and

WHEREAS, if an Assessment District is formed as the result of the submission of Petition Forms, then those property owners who have paid Fees in connection with the Assessment District will receive a credit against their assessment for the amount of the paid Fees; and;

WHEREAS, the City Council has provided notice of its consideration of this Resolution in accordance with law and has held a public hearing regarding this Resolution at which all interested persons were permitted to make oral and written presentations in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 2. Adoption of Inflation Adjusted Fee

Section 3. Effective Date

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this       day of                , 2001.

                                                          
Mayor

ATTEST:

                                                         
City Clerk

Recommendation: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 370, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY’S GOLF TAX.

To approve the attached ordinance, which makes a few additional minor amendments to the City’s golf tax.

At the last Council meeting, the City Attorney presented an ordinance, which made a few minor amendments to the City’s golf tax that is set forth in Chapter 3.40 of the Municipal Code. In response to the issues that were discussed at the last City Council meeting, staff and the City Attorney prepared the attached ordinance, which includes some additional minor revisions to the golf tax that are discussed below.

Like the last version, these revisions do not address the amount of the golf tax or the issue of approval of the tax by the voters; those issues have been addressed in the ordinance that the City Council directed be submitted to the voters at the upcoming election in November.

The attached ordinance expands the definition of "operator" to include agents, in the event the operator sells or transfers a block of tee time use of the golf course. As revised, that section now states:

In addition, paragraph G has been added to Section 3.40.040 to require any operator to adhere to generally accepted accounting principles that are acceptable to the City’s Finance Director, serving in the capacity of the tax administrator:

Staff recommends that the City Council introduce the ordinance by title only, waive further reading and introduce the attached ordinance.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

ORDINANCE NO. ___

Section 2. Section 3.40.40 of Chapter 3.40 of Title 3 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 3.Section 3.40.130 of Chapter 3.40 of Title 3 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending paragraph B thereof to read as follows:

Section 4.Savings Clause. The provisions of this ordinance are substantially the same as those originally set forth in Ordinance No. 291, as adopted in 1993. Therefore, this ordinance is to be construed as a restatement and continuation of this earlier ordinance, as previously codified, and not as a new enactment. Nothing contained in this ordinance shall be interpreted or enforced in any manner as to constitute an increase in the amount of the tax imposed by Ordinance No. 291.

Section 5.Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ___ day of September, 2001.

___________________________
City Clerk

Recommendation: Conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit.

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

Conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit.

On August 2, 2001, the applicant applied for a landslide moratorium exception permit (LME) to allow the necessary applications to be submitted to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for the construction of a two-story addition for the existing residence. The LME application was deemed incomplete on August 20, 2001, pending the submittal of a revised soils report to the City’s geotechnical consultant. A revised report was submitted to the City on August 31, 2001, and was subsequently reviewed and approved by the City’s geotechnical consultant on September 7, 2001. Upon approval of the soils report, the application was deemed complete on September 12, 2001.

The subject property is consists of an existing 963-square-foot single-family residence on an upslope 2,992-square-foot lot in the Portuguese Bend Club community. The existing structure is nonconforming because it is located wholly seaward of the City’s coastal setback line, exceeds the 40-percent lot coverage standard of the RS-2 zoning district, has a substandard garage, and does not meet the required 20-foot front setback. The applicant is proposing a 1,045-square-foot two-story addition.

Pursuant to Section 15.20.040(H) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), an LME application for a project in excess of a cumulative project total of six hundred square feet (600 SF) must be acted upon by the City Council. Since the applicants’ proposal encompasses one thousand forty-five square feet (1,045 SF) of new construction, City Council consideration of this application is required.

The City has established a moratorium prohibiting the filing, processing and approval of building, grading and other land use permits within the Landslide Moratorium Area. However, RPVMC Section 15.20.040 establishes categories of projects that qualify for exceptions to the moratorium based on specific criteria. This project qualifies for an exception that allows minor projects involving additions to existing residential structures.

RPVMC Section 15.20.040(H) requires that, prior to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the applicant submit geological and/or geotechnical studies to satisfy the City's geotechnical consultant that the proposed project will not aggravate conditions within the landslide moratorium area. The City's geotechnical consultant completed a review of the geotechnical reports submitted to the City, and concluded that the proposed addition will not aggravate the existing landslide condition in the Portuguese Bend Club community, subject to compliance with the recommended conditions of approval (see attached Exhibit ‘A’). However, additional project-specific geotechnical information will be required prior to the issuance of building permits.

Approval of this LME by the City Council does not constitute Planning approval of the proposed project. Rather, it allows the applicant to submit the appropriate Planning applications for the specific project. Based on the current proposal, the applicant would need to submit and obtain approval of a variance, a height variation and a coastal permit. The applications would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission through a duly-noticed public hearing. However, approval of this LME by the City Council does not guarantee approval of the subsequent variance, height variation and coastal permit applications by the Planning Commission.

Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit (LME), thereby permitting the landowner to proceed with the necessary applications to request approval of a 1,045-square-foot two-story addition for the property located at 113 Spindrift Drive in the Portuguese Bend Club community, subject to the recommended conditions of approval contained in Exhibit ‘A’ of this report.

The City Council’s action in this matter will have no fiscal impact upon the City.

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration:

1. Approve the landslide moratorium exception permit for a smaller addition; or,
2. Identify any issues or concerns with the proposed project, and provide the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the hearing to a date certain.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Conditions of Approval (Exhibit ‘A’)
Application letter (dated June 25, 2001)
Geotechnical approval-in-concept (dated September 7, 2001)
Project plans

Exhibit ‘A’

1. The approval of this landslide moratorium exception permit shall be valid for one hundred eighty (180) days from date of issuance by the City Council. The Planning applications necessary for the proposed project must be submitted to the Director during this period. The Director may grant extensions beyond this period for good cause.
2. The approval of this landslide moratorium exception permit authorizes the applicant to submit the following Planning applications for the proposed 1,045-square-foot two-story addition: a Variance, a Height Variation and a Coastal Permit. Additional permits may be submitted if they are identified as necessary during the review of the application by the Planning Division.
3. If lot drainage deficiencies are identified by the Director of Public Works, all such deficiencies shall be corrected by the applicant.
4. If the project involves additional plumbing fixtures, or additions of habitable space which exceed two hundred square feet (200 SF), or could be used as a new bedroom, bathroom, laundry room or kitchen, and if the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, septic systems shall be replaced with approved holding tank systems in which to dispose of on-site waste water. The capacity of the required holding tank system shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Building Official. For the purposes of this subsection, the addition of a sink to an existing bathroom, kitchen or laundry room shall not be construed to be an additional plumbing fixture. For those projects which involve additions of less than two hundred square feet (200 SF) in total area and which are not to be used as a new bedroom, bathroom, laundry room or kitchen, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant specifically agreeing that the addition of the habitable space will not be used for those purposes. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director for recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit. For lots or parcels which are to be served by a sanitary sewer system on or after July 6, 2000, additional plumbing fixtures may be permitted and the requirement for a holding tank may be waived, provided that the lot or parcel is to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. If a sanitary sewer system is approved and/or under construction but is not yet operational at the time that a project requiring a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved, the requirement for a holding tank may be waived, provided that the lot or parcel is required to be connected to the sanitary sewer system pursuant to Section 15.20.110 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, or by an agreement or condition of project approval.
5. Roof runoff from all buildings and structures on the site shall be contained and directed to the streets or an approved drainage course.
6. If required by the City geotechnical staff, the applicant shall submit a soils report, and/or a geotechnical report, for the review and approval of the City geotechnical staff.
7. If the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to support and participate in existing or future sewer and/or storm drain assessment districts and any other geological and geotechnical hazard abatement measures required by the City. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
8. If the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City a sewer and storm drain easement on the subject property, as well as any other easement required by the City to mitigate landslide conditions. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
9. A hold harmless agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney promising to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims or damages resulting from the requested project. Such agreement shall be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
10. The applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to construct the project strictly in accordance with the approved plans; and agreeing to prohibit further projects on the subject site without first filing an application with the Director pursuant to the terms of this chapter. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director for recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit.
11. All landscaping irrigation systems shall be part of a water management system approved by the Director of Public Works. Irrigation for landscaping shall be permitted only as necessary to maintain the yard and garden.
12. If the project involves pools and/or spas, a leak detection system approved by the City Building Official shall be installed.

Recommendation: (1) Conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit. (2) Authorize Staff to prepare a notice of termination for an existing covenant related to a previous, expired moratorium exemption permit for the property.

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

1) Conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit; and 2) authorize Staff to prepare a notice of termination for an existing covenant related to a previous, expired moratorium exemption permit for the property.

On August 2, 2001, the applicants applied for a landslide moratorium exception permit (LME) to allow the necessary applications to be submitted to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for the construction of a two-story addition and second-floor deck for the existing residence. The LME application was deemed incomplete on August 20, 2001, pending the submittal of a revised soils report to the City’s geotechnical consultant. A revised report was submitted to the City on August 31, 2001, and was subsequently reviewed and approved by the City’s geotechnical consultant on September 7, 2001. Upon approval of the soils report, the application was deemed complete on September 12, 2001.

The subject property is consists of an existing 1,168-square-foot single-family residence on an upslope 3,218-square-foot lot in the Portuguese Bend Club community. The existing structure is nonconforming because it is located wholly seaward of the City’s coastal setback line, exceeds the 40-percent lot coverage standard of the RS-2 zoning district, and does not meet the required 5-foot side and 20-foot front setbacks. The applicants are proposing a 575-square-foot two-story addition and a 166-square-foot second-floor deck.

Pursuant to Section 15.20.040(H) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), an LME application for a project in excess of a cumulative project total of six hundred square feet (600 SF) must be acted upon by the City Council. Since the applicants’ proposal encompasses seven hundred forty-one square feet (741 SF) of new construction, City Council consideration of this application is required.

The City has established a moratorium prohibiting the filing, processing and approval of building, grading and other land use permits within the Landslide Moratorium Area. However, RPVMC Section 15.20.040 establishes categories of projects that qualify for exceptions to the moratorium based on specific criteria. This project qualifies for an exception that allows minor projects involving additions to existing residential structures.

RPVMC Section 15.20.040(H) requires that, prior to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the applicant submit geological and/or geotechnical studies to satisfy the City's geotechnical consultant that the proposed project will not aggravate conditions within the landslide moratorium area. The City's geotechnical consultant completed a review of the geotechnical reports submitted to the City, and concluded that the proposed addition will not aggravate the existing landslide condition in the Portuguese Bend Club community, subject to compliance with the recommended conditions of approval (see attached Exhibit ‘A’). However, additional project-specific geotechnical information will be required prior to the issuance of building permits.

Approval of this LME by the City Council does not constitute Planning approval of the proposed project. Rather, it allows the applicant to submit the appropriate Planning applications for the specific project. Based on the current proposal, the applicant would need to submit and obtain approval of a variance, a height variation and a coastal permit. The applications would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission through a duly-noticed public hearing. However, approval of this LME by the City Council does not guarantee approval of the subsequent variance, height variation and coastal permit applications by the Planning Commission.

This property was the subject of a moratorium exemption permit (as opposed to a landslide moratorium exception permit) in 1989. As a condition of that approval, the previous owner of the property executed a covenant that prohibited any future additions of habitable or non-habitable space (see attached covenant). This was a standard condition of approval at the time. In 1992, the City’s moratorium regulations were revised and the condition requiring this covenant was modified to simply require City approval of any subsequent additions of habitable or non-habitable space, rather than prohibiting such future additions outright.

Although two hundred eighty-two square feet (282 SF) of additional living area were covered by the 1989 approval, the previous owner abandoned the project after only about sixty square feet (60 SF) were constructed at the home’s entry. With the abandonment of the project, the moratorium exemption permit also expired. However, the old covenant remains on the property and effectively prevents any further additions to the house by the current owners. As such, the applicants have requested that the City terminate the existing covenant to allow their project to proceed. Staff believes that, given that so little of the 1989 project was ever completed and that the City now requires a less-restrictive covenant, it is entirely reasonable to remove the covenant related to the 1989 project.

Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit (LME), thereby permitting the landowner to proceed with the necessary applications to request approval of a 575-square-foot two-story addition and a 166-square-foot second-floor deck for the property located at 112 Spindrift Drive in the Portuguese Bend Club community, subject to the recommended conditions of approval contained in Exhibit ‘A’ of this report. Staff also requests permission from the City Council to prepare the appropriate documents to terminate the covenant related to the 1989 moratorium exemption permit.

The City Council’s action in this matter will have no fiscal impact upon the City.

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration:

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Conditions of Approval (Exhibit ‘A’)
Application letter (dated July 30, 2001)
Geotechnical approval-in-concept (dated September 7, 2001)
Covenant from Moratorium Exemption Permit No. 29
Project plans

Review the current status of border issues and provide direction to the City Council Committee and staff.

At their meeting of April 17, 2001 the City Council established an Ad Hoc Committee for dealing with "border issues." The committee is composed of Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem John McTaggart. The committee is charged with monitoring the activities of neighboring jurisdictions to determine whether or not the City Council should take positions on proposed developments (or events or uses) that may adversely affect the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Border issues are those proposed land developments, events or special uses proposed for approval in adjacent communities that may impact the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. Recent border issues have included approval by the City of Los Angeles of a Home Depot and a Senior Housing project in San Pedro and approval of a housing project at the intersection of Hawthorne Blvd and Crest Road by Rolling Hills Estates.

At their September 4, 2001 meeting the City Council adopted a policy on how to process "border issues."

No new issues have been added to the report during this period. However, there has been significant activity surrounding the Harbor Hills Community Center that the City Council may wish to discuss and take a position on. There is also a brief comment letter from our geologist regarding the Garden village shopping Center that the Council may wish to take action on.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager
Attachments: Border Issues Status Report

BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT
October 2, 2001

The County has proposed construction of a 12,650 square foot recreation facility for the Harbor Hills Housing area. The $2.3 million project will consist of a gym, two multi-purpose rooms, a recreation office, sports equipment storage, a child care area for 36 pre-school children, a sheriff’s patrol office, a full service kitchen, restrooms and locker rooms.

Homeowners in Peninsula Verde were not offered adequate opportunity to comment on the project and have turned to the City to intercede on their behalf. Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart feels the environmental process (CEQA) for the project was flawed and has requested the records documenting the environmental review. A community meeting took place at the Harbor Hills Community Center on August 27, 2001 and was attended by Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart as well as homeowners from Peninsula Verde. In addition to strong objections to the County’s notification process for the project, the homeowners expressed concerns about lighting intensity, times of operation, children crossing PVDN, traffic, unsavory activities near the Lomita water tower and location of the recreation facility. A second meeting took place on September 12, 2001 to allow the County Regional Planning Department to go over the environmental approval process conducted for this project. The Mayor represented the City at this meeting. Issues raised by the homeowners included concerns about the notification process, environmental clearances and parking and grading on the hillside adjacent to their homes.

In response to concerns from Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, Supervisor Knabe became involved in the matter. The Supervisor has been advised by his staff that the contract must be awarded in September of funding will be lost. He has also been advised by County Counsel that the environmental process was completed in accordance with the law. At their meeting on September 25, 2001, the County awarded the construction contract for the community center. However, in response to the concerns of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, Supervisor Knabe modified the motion to award the contract by adding: " continue to meet with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to address their concerns related to this specific development and report back to the Board within 30 days, and postpone commencement of construction until this matter is further reviewed by the Board."

RE-VITALIZATION OF THE GARDEN VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER ON WESTERN AVENUE AT WESTMONT (CITY OF LOS ANGELES)

The Garden Village revitalization project was approved by the Los Angeles City Council on June 8, 2001. The project, located on Western Avenue north of Westmont, will add 2000 square feet of retail space to a reconfigured shopping center to be anchored by a "super" Albertson’s.

The Border Issues Committee was particularly concerned about the underlying soils and drainage conditions in the project area that includes both the City of Los Angeles and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Therefore, at the meeting of June 16, 2001 the ad hoc committee recommended that the City Council authorize a study of these geologic conditions and whether or not the Gardens Village revitalization project will have any adverse impacts on existing properties in our City. The Council authorized the study and funding of $10,000. In addition, City Staff researched the issue of the adequacy of the environmental process for the project.

The statute of limitations has run on the environmental documentation prepared for the Garden Village project. The City Attorney advises us that we have no recourse from that avenue. Bill Cotton, the geologist who is reviewing the geology and soils information provided as part of the project design, has completed his review of the geotechnical reports associated with the Garden Village project. A copy of his comment letter is attached. Mr. Cotton is concerned that there are inadequate long-term geotechnical recommendations to mitigate the impacts of future settlement on existing storm drain and sewer lines on the Village Garden’s property. In order to pursue this potential shortcoming further, intervention at the Councilmember level will probably be required.

EXPANSION OF THE COVENANT CHURCH ON PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES)

The project is still in the informational gathering phase. It seems that the applicant has been making changes to the project so the exact proposal has not been finalized. Generally, the project involves the construction of a new sanctuary building that would accommodate 2,050 seats, along with a new 3-5 level parking structure with 500 parking spaces. The Church also proposes to convert the existing sanctuary to a gymnasium/multi-purpose room for events such as wedding receptions. The preparation of the Initial Study is still underway which will determine whether the project will necessitate an EIR or Negative Declaration. We will receive a notice when either document is prepared and circulated to the public.

CHADWICK SCHOOL EXPANSION (LOS ANGELES COUNTY)

The Chadwick School is a private school (Kindergarten through 12th grade) located on a 45.2-acre site in an island of unincorporated L.A. County near the intersection of Crenshaw Blvd. and PVDN. The School is requesting a CUP from the L.A. County Department of Regional Planning to authorize the continuance and expansion of the school facilities. Approximately 216,759 sq. ft. of new construction is proposed which includes a 76,500 sq. ft., 3-level parking structure and 10,871 sq. ft. for other school structures, with the reconstruction of existing structures making up the remaining 129,388 sq. ft. The school is also seeking to increase enrollment from 725 to 980 students with the expansion plan.

According to L.A. County Department of Regional Planning Staff, the L.A. County Planning Commission approved the CUP earlier this year and the decision has was appealed by local L.A. County residents to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors heard the appeal on September 25, 2001. Apparently some resolution between the school and the appellant was reached since the appeal was denied with no objection.

Back in March of this year, before the Planning Commission acted on the proposed CUP, our Department was contacted by an Academy Hill resident (the unincorporated LA County neighborhood adjacent to the school) concerned that RPV residents living on Blackhorse and Browndeer Drives may not be aware of the proposed expansion. According to the CUP Staff Report, all residents living within a 500-foot radius of the project, including some residents living in RPV, were invited to an informational meeting about the project. In addition, our Department sent copies of the CUP application to the adjacent Homeowner Associations in RPV. I am not aware of any RPV resident contacting our Department with a concern about the project.

Recommendation: Consider whether to place an advertisement in the 2002 Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Yearbook.

Consider whether to place an advertisement in the 2002 Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Yearbook.

In order to help fund the publication of "La Pantera", the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Yearbook, local businesses and other organizations are invited to publish advertisements in the Yearbook. The City has been approached about placing an advertisement in the 2002 edition of the PVPHS Yearbook. Conceptually, the ad could consist of the City’s logo, perhaps a scenic photograph (such as the Point Vicente Lighthouse) and a congratulatory statement to the students and graduating class from the Mayor and City Council. The cost of the various advertisement options are listed below:

The signed contract must be submitted by October 19, 2001. The advertisement itself would be due later, depending on the type of format selected. Color advertisements are due on November 9^th and black and white ads would be due on December 7^th.

There is $6,850 available in unencumbered funds in the FY 01-02 City Grant program. If the Council were in favor of placing the advertisement, staff would recommend using this funding source, which comes from the Community Outreach program in the City Budget.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
La Pantera 2002 Yearbook Business Advertising Contract

Recommendation: (1) Award a contract to construct the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project to Colich and Sons, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $2,250,556 and authorize staff to spend an additional $157,540 for anticipated extra items of work for a total authorization of $2,408,096. (2) Award a professional service contract to Harris and Associates for an amount not to exceed $349,300 for inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. (3) Amend the professional service contract to AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $194,918 for geotechnical inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $279,025. (4) Amend the professional service contract to Helix Environmental Planning for an amount not to exceed $31,100 for mitigation monitoring services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $79,300. (5) Amend the professional service contract to DMc Engineering, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $ 16,000 for engineering services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $140,610. (6) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO INCREASE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BUDGET FOR THE SAN RAMON DRAINAGE AND LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION PROJECT BY $1,150,000 MILLION, FROM $2,000,000 TO $3,150,000.

* Primarily demolition and mobilization costs

** Primarily landscaping and utility relocation costs

As shown in the chart on the previous page, the only bid received for the project was in the amount of $2,250,556. The adopted FY 01-02 Capital Improvements Budget includes $2 million for the San Ramon Project. The budgeted amount includes both construction ($1.7 million) and professional/technical services ($300,000). The source of these funds is the General fund.

Because the bid from Colich & Sons was approximately $660,000 or 30% higher than the engineer’s construction estimate, the two were closely compared. It is immediately apparent that the contractor’s unit cost for importing and placing the fill dirt is substantially higher than the engineer’s estimate. The total difference equals $512,500. This accounts for 78% of the $660,000 difference between the two estimates. This would seem to indicate that the availability of suitable import in the quantity required at this time is limited, perhaps due to the time of year and/or the short-time frame of the project. In addition, it is probable that the dirt source is at some distance from the Peninsula and would also have to be hauled up the hill over steep and winding roads. Given these circumstances, it stands to reason that the cost for dirt would be at a premium. Without this difference, the contractor’s bid is relative to the engineer’s estimate and would be within 22% of each other.

Regarding the qualifications of the contractor, Colich & Sons met all of the City’s stringent pre-qualification requirements and has demonstrated an understanding of the project details, including the critical time frame, difficult access and constrained canyon work environment. The Public Works Department has also worked successfully with this contractor on other projects, including the high-profile Abalone Cove Sewer Project. On that project, the contractor demonstrated an ability to work closely with the public, which will also be a critical factor in the success of the San Ramon Project. This will, however, be the first time staff has worked with this contractor on a landslide stabilization project.

Due to the emergency status of this project and the time constraints imposed by the short construction schedule, staff is convinced that re-bidding the project would be inadvisable. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council award the contract for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project to Colich & Sons.

On September 4, 2001, Council authorized staff to increase the contracts for three of the consultants working on the design of the San Ramon Project: AMEC Earth and Environmental, Helix Environmental Planning and DMC Engineering. Staff requested the increases because the scope of the work for the project had changed dramatically since the contracts were first executed. In the report prepared for that meeting, staff indicated that the current contracts with these firms do not include costs for inspection services while the project is under construction. Because there was no practical way to estimate the inspection costs until the final construction schedule had been established, staff indicated that when we brought the construction contract to the City Council for approval, staff would also bring forward additional contract amendments with these three consultants for inspection services. In addition, because the project is now entering into the construction phase, another consultant is needed to provide over all project management for the City in the field. Therefore, staff is recommending that a fourth consulting firm be added to the project team to provide these specific services.

The team of consultants that staff recommends to manage the construction of the San Ramon Project is as follows:

Harris and Associates – Construction Management and Primary Inspection ($349,300)

This firm will provide day-to-day inspection services and construction management services. They will provide the interface between the contractor and the neighbors impacted by the construction. This firm ably assisted the City with cancellation of the contract for the Point Vicente Interpretive Center Expansion and most recently successfully managed the construction of the high profile Abalone Cove Sewer Project. Because of the City’s relationship with Harris and Associates, staff was able to negotiate the original estimate of $368, 650 down by nearly $20,000 to the current $349,300 amount.

AMEC Earth and Environmental – Geotechnical Inspection ($194,918)

This firm will provide geotechnical inspection services during all grading work. This firm was selected because it was involved during the design phase and its staff has an intimate knowledge of the geologic characteristics of the site, the buttress fill and the surface and subsurface drainage systems that will be installed as part of the project.

AMEC will also prepare detailed pre-construction geology studies of each property that will be affected by the project in order to properly document the pre-existing condition of these properties.

Helix Environmental Planning – Mitigation Monitoring ($31,100)

This firm prepared the CEQA environmental compliance documentation for the project and negotiated the necessary permits with the various resource agencies. Their services will be required to ensure that all required mitigation measures are properly implemented and adhered to during construction.

DMc Engineering – Civil Engineering and Surveying ($16,000)

This firm provided services in preparing the project specifications, pre-qualification packages, contract documents and pre-ordering the drainage pipe. Their services will be required if questions arise over the specifications and to perform miscellaneous survey work during construction.

The total cost for inspection, mitigation monitoring, engineering and administration is $591,318. This represents approximately 25% of the total construction cost of the project (the bid amount plus a contingency). Like the construction bid amount, the cost for these services for the San Ramon Project are substantially higher than the City would normally expect. Typically, inspection costs are approximately 7% of the total construction cost. However, there are several factors that are driving up the inspection and management costs of this particular project:

The overall cost of constructing the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project was initially estimated to be $2 million. The total cost of construction now stands at $2,999,414. The construction bid and management proposals that have been received for the project are higher than what the City would normally expect. However, the higher cost for the construction is attributable to the fact that this is a high profile, high-risk project that is constrained by the need for a substantial amount of imported fill material and a compressed time schedule. Higher management costs are largely due to the fact that this project cannot afford any significant delays or mishaps caused by not providing the proper level supervision in the field and sensitivity to the adjacent residents. Given these facts, staff recommends that the City Council award the bid to Colich & Sons and authorize the inspection services, as proposed.

If the contract is awarded this evening, the pre-construction meeting would be held on October 4, 2001 and construction would begin on October 9, 2001. The contractor will be required to complete the first phase of the project, including placement of 25,000 cubic yards of fill at the toe of the landslide and installation of a temporary storm drain and outlet structure, within 50 working days from the start of construction (December 8, 2001). The second phase of the project, including placement of the remaining 50,000 cubic yards of fill in the canyon and completion of the permanent storm drain system, is expected to take an additional 150 working days (June 5, 2002), weather permitting.

If the Council decides to proceed, the FY 01-02 Capital Improvement Fund appropriation for this project would need to be increased by $1 million, for a total budget amount of $3 million. The resolution that has been prepared for the budget adjustment also includes the $150,000 the City Council authorized on September 18, 2001 for the pre-purchase and fabrication of drainage pipe for the project. The source of the funds is the General fund. The chart below shows the General fund ending balance included in the adopted FY 01-02 Budget, less the budgeted expenditures that have occurred since that time:

It should be noted that the cost of the project does not include all of the mitigation for the coastal sage scrub and riparian habitat that will be lost as result of the project. While most of the coastal sage scrub habitat will be re-vegetated on-site, due to the replacement ratios required by the resource agencies, a portion will be required to be provided off-site. The City has proposed to locate the remaining portion of coastal sage scrub habitat at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and pay an in-lieu fee for the loss of riparian habitat. Once the off-site habitat restoration plans and costs are determined, staff will return to the City Council with a separate agenda item.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

RESOLUTION NO. 2001-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-02, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND

WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provides that all expenditures in excess of budgeted allocations must be by supplemental appropriation of the City Council; and

WHEREAS, on June 5, 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2001-43, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2001-02 fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to allocate additional funds to construct the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project; and

WHEREAS, a budget increase in the Capital Improvement Projects Fund is necessary to authorize the expenditure of additional funds for the project.

BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES:

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 2nd DAY OF OCTOBER 2001.

___________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________
CITY CLERK

State of California)
County of Los Angeles)ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes)

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on October 2, 2001.

_____________________________
CITY CLERK

Recommendation: Provide direction to staff for preparation of a policy describing preparation, format and changes to City Council minutes.

Provide direction to staff for preparation of a policy describing the preparation, format, and changes to City Council minutes.

This matter comes to the City Council as the result of direction given to staff at the September 18, 2001 City Council meeting.

Minutes are written to affirm in writing the proceedings of the City Council. They are an official record that is classified as "permanent" and can never be destroyed.

There are three types of minutes: Action: Records the motions made, the name of the maker and second, and the vote, whether roll call or by voice (see Exhibit "A"). Summary: Provides similar information and presents a brief summary of the Council discussion points (see Exhibit "B"). Detailed: Contains a detailed record of all discussion and includes attributing statements made to specific councilmembers (see Exhibit "C"). Since incorporation in 1973, the minutes of City Council meetings have been in summary format (See Exhibit "D"). To-date 23 volumes of minutes have been written. (There is a fourth type of minutes, verbatim minutes that are prepared by a court reporter or other similar service. Due to the high cost of preparing verbatim minutes, and the other technology that is available, this type of minutes is not being addressed in this report.)

The summary format was chosen because of certain concerns: that elected officials sometimes have a tendency to use the minutes as a political platform; and, that preparing detailed minutes would significantly increase the amount of staff time required to prepare the minutes. In the event a councilmember wanted to have a statement recorded in the minutes, however, provision was made to accommodate such a request under certain conditions. This summary format was memorialized by the adoption of Resol. No. 75-31, which specifically addressed "Remarks by Council Members" as follows:

The preparation of the City Council minutes generally takes three hours of transcription for each hour of meeting. While the minutes are taken using a laptop computer, these notes do not result in a near final copy (See Exhibit "E"). Upon completion of the initial draft, the minutes are disseminated to the various departments for editing. Generally, the minutes of a meeting are included in the agenda packet of the succeeding meeting.

Participants in a meeting can speak at a rate of 180 to 190 words per minutes; keyboarding discussion is at the rate of 75 to 80 words per minutes. Unlike the verbatim testimony taken by a certified court reporter at a rate of up to 260 words per minute, the laptop computer notes taken at our meetings are limited to recording key points of discussion, and finally the motions adopted by Council. These notes then require editing to result in the summary sections of the minutes that begin with the introduction "Council discussion focused on . . ."

While detailed minutes are not direct quotations, they do require paraphrasing of discussion to put it in a grammatically correct form and to attribute specific comments to specific members. In the event that the notes taken at the meeting are insufficient, then the tape of the meeting must be reviewed for clarification. Using our current method of taking notes, the preparation of detailed minutes would probably result in reporting fewer key points and instead require the minute taker to keyboard as much of a particular statement as possible. The minute taker would have to decide which statements, comments and/or responses should be chosen for recordation. Inherent in this, of course, is the issue of whether the councilmembers would agree that the statements chosen for recordation were interpreted correctly and if they were the appropriate comments to record.

To give Council a sense of how other cities write their minutes, staff contacted cities in the South Bay and requested a sample of their minutes. Those samples are attached as Exhibit "F."

The only legal requirement for the content of minutes is contained in Government Code Section 36814, which states "The Council shall cause the clerk to keep a correct record of its proceedings. At the request of a member, the city clerk shall enter the ayes and noes in the journal." The Code is silent about the "style" and whether minutes should be action, summary, or detailed.

Although the written minutes are the official record of City Council meetings, the advent of certain technology now makes it possible to record the meetings in several different mediums, to wit:

The written minutes are the official record of City Council meetings and those minutes are kept forever. Technology now gives the City the ability to provide the live and delayed broadcast of these meetings through video and digital mediums that present complete and unedited viewing of City Council meetings. These advances appear to obviate the preparation of detailed written minutes.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Exhibit "A" City of Santa Monica Minutes
Exhibit "B" City of Rancho Palos Verdes Minutes
Exhibit "C" City of Palos Verdes Estates Minutes
Exhibit "D" City of Rancho Palos Verdes Minutes
Exhibit "E" City of Rancho Palos Verdes Minute Notes
Exhibit "F" Minutes from the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates, Hermosa Beach, Torrance, Redondo Beach, and El Segundo
Exhibit "G" Palos Verdes Library District September 27, 2000 letter
Exhibit "H" October 2, 2001 Memorandum fro Councilman Stern re Form of City Council Minutes

Memo regarding Minutes for Agenda Item # 17 (PDF File)

Recommendation: Provide staff with direction as to when to begin hearing the Long Point project applications and where to conduct the public hearings.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

Provide Staff with direction as to when to begin hearing the Long Point project applications and where to conduct the public hearings.

The Planning Commission has been reviewing the Long Point Resort Project applications, through a series of public hearings, since April of this year. The Commission now appears close to forwarding a recommendation on the EIR, the use of City land, and the project applications to the City Council. Given the amount of public interest in this project, it is expected that the public hearings before the City Council will draw large audiences that may be too overwhelming for the existing facilities at Hesse Park. In addition, the amount of time needed to hear the Long Point item may impact other items on a regular meeting agenda. In light of these issues, Staff is seeking Council direction as to when the Council would like to begin hearing the Long Point project applications and whether the Council would consider conducting the hearings at a different, larger venue.

At their September 25^th meeting, the Planning Commission conceptually approved a project plan that includes 5 golf holes and a 9.3 acre open space area (for active and passive recreational uses which are to be determined at a later date by the City) on the Upper Point Vicente property and 4 golf holes, a practice facility, and the resort hotel (including resort villas) on the Long Point property. The Commission is now set to review the conditions of approval, discuss certification of the project EIR and adopt resolutions forwarding recommendations to the City Council at its next meeting on October 9, 2001.

In discussing the EIR, it has been reiterated to the Commission that pursuant to CEQA, the City Council is required to certify the project EIR within one year from the date the project applications were deemed complete (July 17, 2000). Since the project applicant has granted a 90-day extension, the EIR certification deadline is October 17, 2001. However, as it was explained to the Commission, CEQA is silent on what occurs if the deadline is not met. Therefore Staff and the City Attorney believe that there would be no automatic penalties or negative consequences, such as a de facto project approval, if the EIR is certified after October 17, 2001. Furthermore, Staff has discussed this issue with the project applicant, and the applicant does not object to the City Council considering certification of the EIR after October 17, 2001. Therefore, if the Planning Commission forwards its recommendations, as planned, on October 9, 2001, the City Council could begin hearing the Long Point project application package as early as its regularly scheduled November 7, 2001 meeting.

With regards to an alternate hearing venue, Staff has spoken to the PVP School District about the possibility of using the large auditorium (Fine Arts Building) located on the Miraleste Intermediate School site to conduct the Long Point hearings. The auditorium can accommodate up to 450 people, the City Council and Staff set-up and video cameras for Cox Cable. The School District has indicated that they are willing to allow the City to use the facility, if so desired by the City Council.

Given all of this information, Staff has identified the following options for the Council to consider for conducting the Long Point project hearings:

The Planning Commission appears close to forwarding a recommendation on the Long Point Project EIR, the use of the City’s Upper Pt. Vicente property, and the Long Point project applications to the City Council. Given the amount of public interest in this project, Staff is seeking Council direction as to when the Council would like to begin hearing the Long Point project applications and whether the Council would consider conducting the hearings at a different, larger venue.

Respectfully submitted,
Joel Rojas , Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

Recommendation: Adopt a City Council Policy that: Members of the City Council and the Planning Commission shall publicly disclose in writing to the City Clerk the existence of all communications between such person and a major landowner or major developer of real property within the City, which communication relates to such real property. A "Major Landowner" or "Major Developer" shall mean any person or representative of a person or entity who owns or has an interest in, or is attempting to develop any parcel in excess of 10 acres. Such contacts must be reported in writing within 30 days of the date of such contact. The writing need only identify (1) the parties to the communication, (2) the real property involved, (3) the date, and (4) include a very general statement of the topic of the communication. Such report shall be maintained by the City Clerk and be available for review by any person.

To:Mayor Lyon and City Council Members

From:Council Member Douglas W. Stern

Date:October 2, 2001

Subject:Disclosure of Contacts with Major Landowners/Developers

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt a City Council Policy that:

Residents of Rancho Palos Verdes have historically been very interested in land development issue impacting the City. This interest was the primary reason for the formation of the City. It continues today, as evidenced by the significant public turn-out to address such matters as the proposed Long Point Resort hotel and golf course project, the Ocean Trails project, and the proposed affordable senior housing project.

This concern was further evidenced by a letter from the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Association dated March 7, 1998. That letter, reflecting a resolution of the RPV Council of Homeowners Association stated:

I believe that such a policy is very beneficial to the residents of the City, as well as to the Council and its Members.

The significant benefits of such a Policy include:

I am aware that when the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Associations asked the City Council to adopt this policy in 1998, then Mayor Ferraro, responded that she believed the burden of such reports would be too great. Her letter to the RPV Council of Homeowners Associations stated:

Until one serves in public office it is difficult to appreciate the burden existing laws place on those of us who gladly comply in order to contribute to our communities. However, in light of existing disclosure regulations, the additional burden you suggest is unnecessary and unworkable."

I do not believe that this statement can justify the refusal to adopt such a policy.

First, the disclosure laws do not address the issue to which this proposed policy speaks. No state or other law addresses the issue of reporting or making publicly known such communications. The present laws address other concerns, such as financial disclosure and meeting of a majority of a governing body. This proposed policy is designed to address an entirely different issue. The proposed policy is designed to allow residents and the press to become aware of situations which may lead to greater public involvement in our decision making process. It will allow them to learn when meetings or other communications take place that may indicate that projects that impact the community may be moving forward.

Second, the proposal does not place any significant burden upon any council member. The policy requires disclosure only of communications regarding the real property, not casual communications. The level of detail required is minimal. I have attached to this report a number of sample of reports I have given in the past, reflecting the level of detail that I envision. The number of communications that are likely to be subject to such reports is rather few. Only if the number of such communications is significant might there be concern. However, it is precisely when the number of communications that are otherwise unknown to the public becomes great that there is the most significant need for this policy. For should there be a significant number of such communications, our residents should be entitled to learn of them and assess for themselves the desirability or need to make their desires known to the city council members.

Our City Council has adopted many policies in the past when it has perceived a public benefit in addressing an issue. Such policies include such things as the order in which our names will be listed on stationary (Council Policy #3). I believe that the public interest in this issue of public disclosure of communications with the major landowners or developers is certainly as worthy of adoption by this Council.

The City Council will both benefit the residents and itself by adopting the proposed City Council Policy. It will assist our residents, and also provide greater confidence in the City Council by the residents.

Respectfully submitted,
Douglas W. Stern
City Council Member

To:City Clerk

From:Douglas W. Stern

Date:December 7, 1999

Subject:Communications with Major Developers

I wish to report the following communications with representative of major developers in Rancho Palos Verdes since the election of November 2, 1999:

Developer:Jim York (Filiorum Property)

Date:November 4, 1999 and November 6, 1999

Purpose:I had a meeting with Jim York, of York Long Point Associates, owner of both the Long Point property (old Marineland site) and the Filiorum property. Mr. York telephoned me on Thursday, November 4, 1999 and requested that I meet with him so that he could show me his plans for his Filiorum property.

On Saturday, November 6, 1999, I met with Mr. York. He showed me some plans for Filiorum and drove me around the property. The meeting lasted approximately 1¼ hours.

Developer:York Long Point Project (Mike Mohler)

Date:November 22, 1999

Purpose:I received a phone call from Mike Mohler advising me that the Long Point Project would be submitting a revised proposal in the near future, about Dec. 10, 1999. He told me that as a courtesy he was inviting me to preview their revised Proposal. I advised Mike Mohler that I would prefer to obtain the information through official channels and declined the invitation.

I wish to report the following communications with representatives of major developers in Rancho Palos Verdes since our last meeting on March 8, 2000:

Developer:Destination Resorts (Lowe Enterprises, Robert J. Lowe, Bob Lowe, Mike Mohler)

Date:March 31, 2000

Purpose:Mike Mohler of Destination Resorts contacted me and requested that he and the Lowes meet with me to show me their revised plan for Long Point and the City Hall Property. They met with me on March 31, 2000, showed me a one page diagram of the new plan that they intend to file with the City and explained some of the changes that they had made to the prior plan submitted to the City which was the subject of the February, 1999 City Council meeting. The meeting lasted approximately 1 hour.

Developer:Ocean Trails (Barbara Dye)

Date:March 10, 2000

Purpose:The recent heavy rains that had fallen on Sunday, March 5, 2000 had resulted in the exposure of the sewer line running though the eastern portion of the Ocean Trails golf course, as reported and revealed on the front page of the P.V. News of March 9, 2000. I made arrangements with Barbara Dye to view the situation. The Sanitation District had already concreted over the exposed sewer line when I viewed it. Barbara Dye also showed me the interior of the Club House which was nearing completion. The meeting lasted approximately 45 minutes.

Recommendation: Provide staff with direction as to whether to initiate code amendment proceedings to consider amendments to the City’s existing "neighborhood compatibility" review procedures.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

Provide Staff with direction as to whether to initiate code amendment proceedings to consider amendments to the City’s existing "neighborhood compatibility" review procedures.

On January 18, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 355 (Code Amendment No. 46) that, among other things, required that residential additions consisting of a 25% or more expansion of the total square footage of the original main residence, including garage, be subject to a "neighborhood compatibility" analysis (see attached excerpt minutes).

It has recently been brought to Staff’s attention by Councilman McTaggart that there may be additions, which do not trigger the 25% "neighborhood compatibility" requirement, but are constructed in a manner where they do not appear to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood. As a result, Councilman McTaggart has requested that this item be placed on the agenda so that the Council can consider whether to amend the "neighborhood compatibility" review requirements to address these situations.

According to the current Development Code (see attached section 17.02.030.B), the determination of whether a new residence or an addition to an existing residence is compatible with the "neighborhood character" is made by the Planning Commission or Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement in the course of considering the applicable permit application. A "neighborhood compatibility" analysis involves an assessment of a proposed project in terms of "neighborhood character", which is defined as, 1) scale of surrounding residences, 2) architectural styles and materials, and 3) front yard setbacks. The Director’s or Planning Commission’s determination of a project’s compatibility with "neighborhood character" is based on a review of the above characteristics relative to the ten closest residences (the immediate neighborhood). Notice of an application involving a "neighborhood compatibility" finding is published in the local newspaper and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed project. Due to the noticing and analysis requirements, it takes approximately 2 to 3 months to process such applications.

Presently, if proposed additions do not trigger the "neighborhood compatibility" review criteria (25% or more expansion of original structure size), the subject applications are solely reviewed to ensure compliance with the City’s development standards (setbacks, lot coverage, height, etc.). If the proposed additions are in compliance with the Development Code standards, the applications are administratively approved without public notice. This process takes approximately 2 to 3 working days.

In order to ensure that additions which do not trigger the "neighborhood compatibility" review criteria, but have the potential to create "neighborhood compatibility" impacts, are thoroughly reviewed, Councilman McTaggart would like to add a clause to the Development Code that allows the Director to require a "neighborhood compatibility" analysis when additions that are less than 25% of the original building size have the potential to create impacts to the neighborhood due to obvious non-compatible design features. The specific design features that would trigger such a review could include, but not be limited to:

If the Council agrees to initiate the proposed code amendment, the actual amendment language would first be reviewed by the Planning Commission through a noticed public hearing process. The Commission would then forward a recommendation to the City Council for its consideration and eventual adoption.

On August 29, 2001, the City received a letter (attached) from a resident requesting that the City Council consider amending the neighborhood compatibility ordinance to be less restrictive. Specifically, he is requesting that the Council amend the Ordinance to give the Director the discretion to exempt projects that exceed the 25% threshold from having to go through the "neighborhood compatibility" analysis, if it is determined that they would not "affect the neighborhood in any way". The letter was previously distributed to the Council via the August 30, 2001 Friday Report.

The proposed code amendment would have no fiscal impact.

Respectfully submitted,
Joel Rojas , Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by:
Les Evans , City Manager

Attachments:
City Council Meeting Minutes of December 21, 1999
Code Section 17.02.030(B)
Letter from Ali Aryafar dated August 22, 2001

Based on Government Code Section 54954.5
(All Statutory References are to California Government
Code Sections)

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
G.C. 54956.8

Potential purchase of open space.

Staff Coordinator:Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

Receive and file the July 2001 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency.

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of July 2001 for the Redevelopment Agency.

The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency decreased by $570,510 during the month, ending with an overall balance of $3,155,733 at July 31, 2001. The majority of the month’s expenditures were related to ongoing progress payments for the construction of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project. It is expected that the Agency will continue to experience large monthly decreases in cash until the completion of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Agency Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, Executive Director

Receive and file the August 2001 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency.

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of August 2001 for the Redevelopment Agency.

The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency decreased by $505,310 during the month, ending with an overall balance of $2,650,424 at August 31, 2001. The majority of the month’s expenditures were related to ongoing progress payments for the construction of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project. It is expected that the Agency will continue to experience large monthly decreases in cash until the completion of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Agency Treasurer

IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 2, 2001
FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

Receive and file the July 2001 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of July 2001 for the Improvement Authority.

The Improvement Authority’s cash increased by $26,955 during the past month, ending with an overall balance of $1,608,203 at July 31, 2001. Cash activity during July 2001 was limited to the receipt of the $7,917 monthly transfer from the City’s General fund, $22,645 interest earned and approximately $3,600 of cash outlays for routine dewatering well maintenance activities.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Authority Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, Chief Administrative Officer

Receive and file the August 2001 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of August 2001 for the Improvement Authority.

The Improvement Authority’s cash decreased by $1,822 during the past month, ending with an overall balance of $1,606,381 at August 31, 2001. Cash activity during August 2001 was limited to the receipt of the $7,917 monthly transfer from the City’s General fund and approximately $9,700 of cash outlays for routine dewatering well maintenance activities.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Authority Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, Chief Administrative Officer

Receive the briefing from ACLAD Chairman Robert Douglas and provide direction to staff as appropriate.

In 1980 the State approved legislation to allow the formation of Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts. The Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD) was formed under this legislation in 1981. Through assessments on properties within the District boundaries funds have been raised to install landslide mitigation measures. ACLAD has installed and maintains approximately eighteen de-watering wells in and around the Abalone Cove Landslide. These wells have been instrumental in slowing the movement of the slide.

The 1987 Reimbursement and Settlement Agreement between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency and the County of Los Angeles directed the creation of a Joint Powers Maintenance Authority (JPMA) to oversee the on-going maintenance of capital improvements constructed by the Redevelopment Agency with the bond proceeds. The Agreement further stipulated that $1 million of the bond proceeds be set aside in a separate maintenance trust fund. The accrued interest on this fund can be used only for maintenance purposes. The original principal amount of $1 million cannot be expended. The interest earnings are to be used to maintain the landslide abatement improvements constructed by the RDA pursuant to the Reimbursement and Settlement Agreement, with the exception of sewer systems. In addition, the funds generated by the maintenance trust fund may also be used, to the extent not otherwise used for the maintenance of improvements constructed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, to maintain public landslide abatement improvements that were not constructed with the proceeds of the assessment bonds.

On May 2, 2000, the JPMA authorized the use of a portion of the investment earnings (up to $60,000 annually) in the maintenance trust fund to assist in paying for the maintenance and utilities associated with the thirteen dewatering wells, pumps, and pipelines which were in existence prior to the Reimbursement and Settlement Agreement. Currently, ACLAD charges property owners an annual assessment for the operation and maintenance of these wells as well as for other ACLAD administrative costs. ACLAD’s budget is approximately $140,000, of which approximately $60,000 is for the operation and maintenance costs associated with the wells.

The ACLAD Board of Directors has requested that the Improvement Authority fund an extensive program of maintenance proposed to rehabilitate the existing de-watering well system. As a prelude to any JPMA discussion of the matter, Dr. Douglas has offered to provide the Authority Board a briefing on ACLAD’s activities and their proposed maintenance plan.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, Chief Administrative Officer

Attachment:
Letter from ACLAD of September 11, 2001